“Hey, we took a bunch of your land and we have repeatedly violated our previous agreements not to take more, but hey, take this shitty land in return for a bunch of concessions from your side. We promise that this time we won’t violate our agreement. Promise!”

Another paraphrase: You’re one of two brothers. Shortly after your father’s death, your brother gains access to your elderly father’s bank account and plunders it. You take them to court to seek justice, but the judge is a friend of your sister-in-law. Despite the evidence being overwhelmingly in your favor, the judge rules against you. You appeal to a higher court and the case is pending. Your brother approaches you and offers you 10% of the money but you must sign away your rights to inherit any more of the money and the rest of the estate.

It’s just wild: if you change the context of the narrative, almost any reasonable person would say one party is absolutely the aggressor, but a bunch of propagandists like you have pushed an alternative narrative that the no-critical-thinking crowd eats right up.